Friday, June 24, 2011

My hope for gay rights activists going into 2012 is that we can focus our protests and actions on those who richly deserve to be protested and acted against.

Too many activists, it seems, are going off on tangential facebook rants about Barack Obama’s lackluster non-support of gay marriage. This ignores the culpability of Congress in not passing legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which Bill Clinton signed into law not too long ago. DOMA is an unconstitutional law because it dictates standards for marriage to all of the 50 states – a power that the Federal Government cannot have. The United States Constitution says verbatim:

Amendment 10 - The powers not delegated to the United States by theConstitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the Statesrespectively, or to the people.

Since marriage is not one of the enumerated powers of the Federal Government, it MUST belong to the States or the People. It is the responsibility of the Congress to admit their mistake and pass a repeal law. When they do this, it will be Obama's responsibility to sign the repeal law as he did with repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). Many people in Congress are failing us right now because they are disobeying the Constitution every moment that they do not repeal DOMA.

One such person is former Senator Rick Santorum who frequently cites the Constitution of the USA in other debates. He relies on his Catholic upbringing for his argument against gay marriage, however.

Interestingly though, Santorum’s allegiance to Catholicism might be his downfall in his current run for President of the United States. Why? It is because in the process of campaigning, he has already committed two mortal sins.

In 2008, The Holy See under leadership of Pope Benedict XVI added seven “new sins” to the list of mortal or “deadly” sins to make a total of 14. While such a decision strikes non-Catholics as somewhat arbitrary, the Holy See is not to be disrespected or defied by practicing Catholics and the rules stand. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into Hell”.

The Vatican made it quite clear that “promoting torture” is a mortal sin because “torture, which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.” Thus, in respect to the 5th Commandment, the verbal promotion of torture or cruel experiments by a Catholic media person or politician creates what the church calls “scandal”.

Scandal, in Catholic terms, is about as bad as it gets – it means that you are “wolf in sheeps clothing”. The Bible says of one who creates religious scandal that they’d be better off to tie a stone around their neck and drown themselves than to deal with the Lord himself.

Another mortal Sin that Santorum has flippantly ignored his culpability in is promoting pollution of the environment.

According to Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti of the Holy See, “environmental blight” is a particularly grave sin because it affects so many people globally who cannot defend themselves. The Archbishop cited climate change specifically on this matter.

Now, obviously, some will argue that the mere promotion of policies which may or may not lead to such sins is a murky area in moral law and that the Santorum should not be held religiously accountable for his words… Its fine for a non-Catholic to hold that opinion but the Catholic leadership totally disagrees.

It goes back to the Holy See’s staunch refusal to support Scandal… Sins which are promoted on a mass scale via media or social networking are considered Scandal and for a Catholic to commit these acts… Well, there’s always the stone-around-the-neck routine…

Catholic Democrats have been denied Communion in the United States on more than one occasion due to their perceived “promotion” of abortion and stem-cell research. Being denied Communion is basically the Catholic Church’s way of saying “Go to hell”. John Kerry, a Presidential candidate like Santorum was one such person in 2004.

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Daily Mail Uses Old College Prank Photos To Evidence Lies and Distortions

Just when you thought “weinergate” had finally been laid to rest by the Congressman’s resignation – you would be wrong. The Daily Mail ran a big outlandish spread of text with two photos allegedly from Anthony Weiner’s college days where a young man is parading around in women’s underwear and charges that his poor unsuspecting wife must now contend with the humiliation of accepting that he is a closeted "cross-dresser", implying that he sends out kinky fetish pictures to other women.

Only when carefully gleening the article can a person discern that the photos have nothing to do with the recent non-scandal that was cooked up by Andrew Breitbart and Ann Coulter.

So who is the Daily Mail and why would they care to attack a Jewish Congressman in another country across the pond? Well, that’s the really awful part.

The Daily Mail has a long history of attacking Jews and gays and liberals. This is because they are (and always have been) owned by real Nazis. Harold Harmsworth, (known to the Brits as Lord Rothermere) was their creator and publisher prior to WW2. He wrote such columns as “Hoorah For The Blackshirts” and was a close friend of Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini. The Daily Mail is still owned by his descendants.

Fox News and the National Enquirer frequently look to the Daily Mail for marketing gimmicks to copy and for outlandish quotes that they can attribute to an outside news source. Sadly and shamefully for the UK, the Daily Mail is the 2nd best selling newspaper in their little "empire".

But don't think the USA is totally off the hook on this... Ann Coulter, one of the architects of "Weinergate" is rather antisemitic herself, having made statements on Meet The Press that she wished for a purely Christian, White, Republican America and that Jews "still need to be perfected".

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

This is the kind of story that reminds me of why I started a blog… A lot has happened in the last year but not much of it takes precedence over the 3 points at which my fellow so-called liberal Democrats have decided to play “Republican for a day” and began drafting their plans for the first semi-automatic glass-housed stone launcher…

First, let’s start out with the possibly the most neglected hypocrite of them all: Dan Savage… Yes, I’m talking about the “It Gets Better” guy…

You see, It Gets Better aims to foster warm-fuzzy feelings not in the bullying victims themselves, but rather the people who made the videos. Sadly, the videos made by concerned citizens are largely ignored on YouTube while everyone really only cares to hear from their favorite celebrity… However well intentioned it was to start, it’s becoming a PR tool to tap into the gay market. But the irony of this movement is that Dan Savage himself is a cyber-bully.

Dan Savage is serophobic and rather hateful about it too. In case you’re not familiar with the term “serophobia”, let’s call it somebody who hates people with HIV or fears them. It is serophobia that lead to proposed legislation in Uganda that would effectively put all gay people in prison or have them killed (even though the majority with HIV in Uganda are heterosexual or “straight”).

Dan Savage has never done that to gay people in general. But he’s done it to people with HIV… specifically gay men whom enjoyed bareback pornography or got HIV from practicing condomless sex. You see, Dan Savage wanted to make a case against “bareback” pornography. This was presumably to gain favor with Democrats who were concerned about a “gay sex columnist” joining their ranks as “the Ann Coulter of the Left”.

So, with his usual flair for the obscene, Savage chose to equate condomless pornography with child pornography. His writing on the subject assumed that young boys were being victimized by the California above-ground porn industry and being intentionally infected with a deadly virus by predatory men with HIV who want nothing more than to harm your little boy… You think I’m making that up? Read it here (as he’s never had the shame to take it off his blog).

Speaking as someone who has worked in the adult entertainment and novelties industry, I can say with some certainty that the producers of condomless pornography go to great lengths to make sure their models are tested for a wide array of STD’s and that those with HIV (the least problematic of the main ones) are only paired up with partners of the same status. If anyone disagrees with my rose-colored view, they can feel free to leave a comment.

Child pornography, on the other hand, is some SERIOUS shit. I’ve also been witness to the absolute terror that is child pornography and I’ve suffered effects of PTSD from only having viewed what I did. I imagine that not too many of the children I witnessed being raped managed to live through the ordeal. That is all discussed in other places on my blog.

If Dan Savage thinks it's ok in any way to try to connect condomless (natural) sex with such crimes... he's not the person you want to leave your kids to look up to. The fact that this scare-tactic laiden and bullying propaganda came from a so-called Democrat astounds me to no end. But lest you think Savage is just a prude - he's all about using images of children in explicit content without the permission of their parents.

All of this brings me to my next blog post – where I will be highlighting the recent hypocrisy of some other audacious Democrats including President Obama, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Nancy Pelosi who all seem to have "sex issues" because of Congressman Anthony Weiner's penis.

Until then, I’m just “keeping ‘em honest” as Anderson Cooper says… but I’d like to end on this note: If Dan Savage is willing to take down the Santorum website that made both he and the homophobic Republican famous in the first place, and if he is willing to take down his article comparing condomless pornography to child pornography, I will in turn remove my criticism of him from my own blog and congratulate him on taking the necessary steps to not be such a bully himself.